The police officer who Tasered a bodybuilder four times has told an inquest into the man's death how he fired shots in "fear" for his safety. Dale Burns, 27, of Barrow, Cumbria, suffered a heart attack and died after being arrested at his flat.......

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-cumbria-21148980The police officer who Tasered a bodybuilder four times has told an inquest into the man's death how he fired shots in "fear" for his safety. Dale Burns, 27, of Barrow, Cumbria, suffered a heart attack and died after being arrested at his flat.......

A Policeman's fear for his safety means I just really wanted to teach some fucker a lesson.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-cumbria-21148980The police officer who Tasered a bodybuilder four times has told an inquest into the man's death how he fired shots in "fear" for his safety. Dale Burns, 27, of Barrow, Cumbria, suffered a heart attack and died after being arrested at his flat.......

Who would be scared of a midget bodybuilder? It just shows the low standard of police in the UK. Low IQ, low physical capability.

If you were a cop and told someone they are under arrest and they wouldn't comply what would you do after they took a fighting stance? Exchange strikes then possibly get into a ground game with them while you have a gun on your hip he could take? Hit him with your baton until he submits? Pepper spray him where the spray would also effect you and sometimes doesn't work. Or use the taser on your hip? All of the options are legal if someone resists arrest.

The moral to the story is if a cop says your under arrest or even takes out his hand cuffs; let him arrest you.

If you were a cop and told someone they are under arrest and they wouldn't comply what would you do after they took a fighting stance? Exchange strikes then possibly get into a ground game with them while you have a gun on your hip he could take? Hit him with your baton until he submits? Pepper spray him where the spray would also effect you and sometimes doesn't work. Or use the taser on your hip? All of the options are legal if someone resists arrest.

The moral to the story is if a cop says your under arrest or even takes out his hand cuffs; let him arrest you.

Their are usually multiple officers around, they should use physical force with a few baton strikes if necessary and tackle him to the ground. Beats killing a man with 50000 volts. I am tired of these weak as piss policeman scared to get a graze on their knee. How do you think they did it in the old days, they overwhelmed them with physical force, but these days, policemen are scared to break a fingernail. They would rather kill a man than risk getting a little banged up. The Police force used to attract masculine men, now it is full of insecure weak people who have no business being in authority.

Their are usually multiple officers around, they should use physical force with a few baton strikes if necessary and tackle him to the ground. Beats killing a man with 50000 volts. I am tired of these weak as piss policeman scared to get a graze on their knee. How do you think they did it in the old days, they overwhelmed them with physical force, but these days, policemen are scared to break a fingernail. They would rather kill a man than risk getting a little banged up. The Police force used to attract masculine men, now it is full of insecure weak people who have no business being in authority.

They use the taser specifically because prosecuting attorneys are so adept at proving excessive force when police used to "beat" would-be criminals.

The taser is not as easily prosecuted and is viewed as not being excessive (unless discharged numerous times once the subject has been subdued).

The name of the game now is: is the taser an appropriate form of non-lethal force? Some would say no. Some would say there are other non-lethal devices that subdue victims without potentially killing them (such as sound blasts, etc...). I'm not an expert on that stuff, so I have nothing to say about that.

This case hinges on whether the prosecutor can prove that the defendent was zapped multiple times after being sufficiently restrained, which would have been excessive force causing death. The compounding circumstances of having bath salts (and the wild tales of what that drug does to people...remember face eating in Miami?) in his blood will make it difficult to prove the cop did not act fearing for his life.

I predict the jury will side with the officer barring any obvious evidence that the officer was being punitive. Folks are scared of criminals on bath salts running around eating people. They'll believe the cop.

Bottom line: don't take mind-altering chemicals, because they turn you into someone else...someone incapable of properly judging their own actions and evaluating possible reactions. But you'll still be held accountable for what you did. Too bad he paid with his life in learing that hard lesson. But I have little sympathy for him. He's a father. What kind of sorry excuse for a father goes around taking bath salts? He's an embarrassment to his family, and now he's dead because of it, causing the ultimate harm to his family.

They use the taser specifically because prosecuting attorneys are so adept at proving excessive force when police used to "beat" would-be criminals.

The taser is not as easily prosecuted and is viewed as not being excessive (unless discharged numerous times once the subject has been subdued).

The name of the game now is: is the taser an appropriate form of non-lethal force? Some would say no. Some would say there are other non-lethal devices that subdue victims without potentially killing them (such as sound blasts, etc...). I'm not an expert on that stuff, so I have nothing to say about that.

This case hinges on whether the prosecutor can prove that the defendent was zapped multiple times after being sufficiently restrained, which would have been excessive force causing death. The compounding circumstances of having bath salts (and the wild tales of what that drug does to people...remember face eating in Miami?) in his blood will make it difficult to prove the cop did not act fearing for his life.

I predict the jury will side with the officer barring any obvious evidence that the officer was being punitive. Folks are scared of criminals on bath salts running around eating people. They'll believe the cop.

Bottom line: don't take mind-altering chemicals, because they turn you into someone else...someone incapable of properly judging their own actions and evaluating possible reactions. But you'll still be held accountable for what you did. Too bad he paid with his life in learing that hard lesson. But I have little sympathy for him. He's a father. What kind of sorry excuse for a father goes around taking bath salts? He's an embarrassment to his family, and now he's dead because of it, causing the ultimate harm to his family.

I'm not saying the accused is right or didn't contribute, but I don't think the DEATH penalty was warranted. And I think you will find he TASER will become less and less tolerated, the deaths are mounting, and their is increasing non biased research highlighting the potentially fatal effect they have on the heart. Many human rights organisation suggest they are a device of torture. And due to their unpredictable outcome, if I was in such a situation I would prefer to take my chances against multiple police, some pepper spray and a baton.

And calling someone a criminal because the Police suspected he destroyed his own bathroom is a stretch. I have never understood the crime in smashing your own things! After all, your the perpetrator and the victim. Essentially, a man was killed for allegedly smashing his own property, that's pretty fucked up and hard to reason that the punishment fit the crime.

I'm not saying the accused is right or didn't contribute, but I don't think the DEATH penalty was warranted. And I think you will find he TASER will become less and less tolerated, the deaths are mounting, and their is increasing non biased research highlighting the potentially fatal effect they have on the heart. Many human rights organisation suggest they are a device of torture. And due to their unpredictable outcome, if I was in such a situation I would prefer to take my chances against multiple police, some pepper spray and a baton.

And calling someone a criminal because the Police suspected he destroyed his own bathroom is a stretch. I have never understood the crime in smashing your own things! After all, your the perpetrator and the victim. Essentially, a man was killed for allegedly smashing his own property, that's pretty fucked up and hard to reason that the punishment fit the crime.

Well, I'll agree that smashing your own stuff should be perfectly legal. But I wonder...they call it a "flat", which to me, might imply he was renting an apartment. Then it wouldn't be his to smash. But if I'm wrong on that, then yes...he should be allowed to smash away to his heart's content without any fear of reprisal. As long as he isn't endangering those around him, or generally disturbing the peace.

I too agree the death penalty wasn't deserved. But, the outcome is what it is. He knowingly took drugs, and is therefore accountable for his actions, however little control he had over them.

So now, we have to understand: did the cops use excessive force leading to death? Or were they justified? Did they taze him after he was subdued? Or not? You have to admit...a jury of this man's peers will want to side with him given bath salts were involved. It's impossible for Joe and Jane Q. Public to not be fearful of that drug's effects, what with all the media hooplah and propaganda surrounding it.

Again, I think my point stands. The only reason tasers are in the hands of policemen is because prosecutors are too effective at proving excessive force when officers use batons or nightsticks or other devices. Which gets the accused person on the streets again, potentially to re-offend, after having gotten off on a technicality. We don't want to see that either.

I will agree with you though that the public's tolerance for what appears to be mounting numbers of deaths due to tasers is slowly but surely waning. They want a better solution. I believe there must be something out there. But folks will find the police unions to be a strong opposing force to changes here.

o now, we have to understand: did the cops use excessive force leading to death? Or were they justified? Did they taze him after he was subdued? Or not? You have to admit...a jury of this man's peers will want to side with him given bath salts were involved. It's impossible for Joe and Jane Q. Public to not be fearful of that drug's effects, what with all the media hooplah and propaganda surrounding it.

Again, I think my point stands. The only reason tasers are in the hands of policemen is because prosecutors are too effective at proving excessive force when officers use batons or nightsticks or other devices. Which gets the accused person on the streets again, potentially to re-offend, after having gotten off on a technicality. We don't want to see that either.

I will agree with you though that the public's tolerance for what appears to be mounting numbers of deaths due to tasers is slowly but surely waning. They want a better solution. I believe there must be something out there. But folks will find the police unions to be a strong opposing force to changes here.

We'll see.

This is the issue, Tasers can be used and have little to no after effect on an individual, but their are times when the TASER is FATAL. I find it hard to accept that Prosecutors find it easy to prove excessive force when a more direct physical approach is taken, and yet can't find the same ease in proving this with TASERS. I think because the research regarding TASERS is heavily biased in favor of the TASER group. The fact that TASER is a commodity that can be publicly traded sets up a conflict of interest that leads to such bias. When their is pressure for a company to make profits so it's share holders can enjoy the dividends, their is going to be huge pressure to utilise their product as often as possible. This means USE the TASER as much as you can. I think this is a big factor in mission creep and the overuse of the device with minimal provocation.

Also because Police use the device often without fatality, police consider the device safe, so they use it when it isn't required, and if someone dies, the Police know exactly what to say to get off the hook. If you study the case of the young brazillian man Roberto Laudisio Curti who was tasered and died on the streets of Sydney last year, the Blue code of silence was quite perverse, and the lies were so obvious that the coroner labelled the Police as "Thugs" and like "schoolboys in Lord of the Flies". The coroner made it quite clear very early on that she didn't expect honesty from the police involved. Anyway, due to our corruption and the police knowing exactly what to say, they got away with killing a man who was running away from them.

Due to the overwhelming fatalities, the company itself has had to acknowledge that rather than labelling the device "non lethal", they now phrase the term 'Less Lethal". They also changed the phrase “leave no lasting after-effects” to “are more effective and safer than other use-of-force options”.

Here in Australia, after Tasers were introduced, gun use remained relatively constant. Which doesn’t really make a convincing case that Tasers are being used instead of firearms. Tasers haven't lessened gun use as a force option, They’re being used as well as, not instead of guns. The average persons gut instinct would be to believe that shocking someone with 50,000 volts of electricity causing temporary paralysis would easily be described as an excessive use of force, the problem is, all these paid off Professors who bamboozle the public with hard to understand pseudo-science convincing the people that they don't have the expertise so trust them when they tell you delivering a paralysing 50,000 volts to someone is perfectly safe.

I believe a lot of the time the use of patient skilled communication would prevent a lot of these incidents, but the Police force attracts people who are attracted to FORCE and potentially aren't great communicators to begin with.

so they were still scared after 3 taser shots? Man, UK police are pussies?

American Police are just as bad, the TASER use by American Police is off the charts! The Police Force attracts Scared Insecure people, they believe the right to abuse ordinary citizens with excessive force as a panacea for this disorder.

This is the issue, Tasers can be used and have little to no after effect on an individual, but their are times when the TASER is FATAL. I find it hard to accept that Prosecutors find it easy to prove excessive force when a more direct physical approach is taken, and yet can't find the same ease in proving this with TASERS. I think because the research regarding TASERS is heavily biased in favor of the TASER group. The fact that TASER is a commodity that can be publicly traded sets up a conflict of interest that leads to such bias. When their is pressure for a company to make profits so it's share holders can enjoy the dividends, their is going to be huge pressure to utilise their product as often as possible. This means USE the TASER as much as you can. I think this is a big factor in mission creep and the overuse of the device with minimal provocation.

Also because Police use the device often without fatality, police consider the device safe, so they use it when it isn't required, and if someone dies, the Police know exactly what to say to get off the hook. If you study the case of the young brazillian man Roberto Laudisio Curti who was tasered and died on the streets of Sydney last year, the Blue code of silence was quite perverse, and the lies were so obvious that the coroner labelled the Police as "Thugs" and like "schoolboys in Lord of the Flies". The coroner made it quite clear very early on that she didn't expect honesty from the police involved. Anyway, due to our corruption and the police knowing exactly what to say, they got away with killing a man who was running away from them.

Due to the overwhelming fatalities, the company itself has had to acknowledge that rather than labelling the device "non lethal", they now phrase the term 'Less Lethal". They also changed the phrase “leave no lasting after-effects” to “are more effective and safer than other use-of-force options”.

Here in Australia, after Tasers were introduced, gun use remained relatively constant. Which doesn’t really make a convincing case that Tasers are being used instead of firearms. Tasers haven't lessened gun use as a force option, They’re being used as well as, not instead of guns. The average persons gut instinct would be to believe that shocking someone with 50,000 volts of electricity causing temporary paralysis would easily be described as an excessive use of force, the problem is, all these paid off Professors who bamboozle the public with hard to understand pseudo-science convincing the people that they don't have the expertise so trust them when they tell you delivering a paralysing 50,000 volts to someone is perfectly safe.

I believe a lot of the time the use of patient skilled communication would prevent a lot of these incidents, but the Police force attracts people who are attracted to FORCE and potentially aren't great communicators to begin with.

A well-stated rebuttal. I generally agree with your sentiment in the post above.